logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.15 2016나2022842
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. The part against Plaintiff B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Defendant C shall each be listed in the separate sheet with the Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) “Appointed D” in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendant D”; (b) “Appointed E” as “Defendant E; and (c) the Defendant’s “Defendant C” as “Defendant C”; and (d) this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. 1) At the time of the agreement in the instant case, the Plaintiff Company made a non-prosecution agreement that the Defendants would not raise any civil or criminal objection.

Plaintiff

The lawsuit of this case by the Plaintiff Company is unlawful as it was filed against the non-committee agreement, and the lawsuit of this case by Plaintiff B, which can be seen as the security of the Plaintiff Company, is also unlawful against the non-committee agreement.

B) Plaintiff B received the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet from M for the purpose of filing the instant lawsuit against Defendant C. This is unlawful as it falls under a litigation trust. (2) The written agreement does not contain any phrase corresponding to the attached sheet, and the phrase that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Ecuas agreement was agreed upon by the parties. In light of the fact that the written agreement and Ecuas agreement state “any dispute related to the agreement shall be resolved with the Seoul Central District Court under their jurisdiction,” it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff Company did not raise any civil or criminal objection at the time of the instant agreement.”

Even if the agreement of this case is concluded in an amount much more than normal trade prices by taking advantage of the imminent situation of the Plaintiff company, which must acquire ownership without any restriction on the instant real estate in order to carry out the instant project.

arrow